1

STUDIO AIRA F I F A H , A H M A D S H A M S U D I N

2 0 1 5 | S E M E S T E R 1 | G E O F F

2

Table of Contents

4 Introduction

5 Conceptualisation

6 A1 | Design Futuring

7 A2 | Design Computation

9 A3 | Composition/Generation

11 A4 | Conclusion

12 A5 | Learning Outcomes

13 A6 | Algorithmic Sketches

15 B1 | Research Field

18 B2 | Case Study 0.1

22 B3 | Case Study 0.2

24 B4 | Technique Development

26 B5 | Technique Prototype

27 B6 | Technique Proposal

28 B7 | Learning Outcomes

29 B8 | Algorithmic Sketches

3

30 C1 | Design Concept

35 C2 | Tectonic Elements & Prototypes

38 C3 | Final Detail Model

42 C4 | Learning Objectives & Outcomes

4

Afifah, Ahmad Shamsudin

Undertaking Bachelor of Environment majoring in Architecture at University of Melbourne. My interest outside architecture is wide. I get involved with student-run community development projects in rural areas focusing on improvement in basic amenities and education.

What made me pursue architecture is the perplexity of how build environments affects the life and well-being of people. I am intrigued by the idea of spaces influencing decisions and behaviour. I am interested mostly in public infrastructure , residential and others that I think essential - still developing my thoughts on what are those essentials. Interested in exploring accessible and sustainable solution to built environment.

Developing Rhino and AutoCAD skill since the beginning architecture course. Utilised several applications from Adobe Creative Suite for previous Studios’ presentations. I picked up the skill from my early-teenage-year’s obsession of having cool Myspace background. Later on the skill developed by having to illustrate merchandise and advertising material for low-on-fund student run projects and events.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

5

Foreword

What is to be built?

Anything anyone feels like need to be built. It does not matter what is there to be built, human will naturally decide on that. However, what is need to be thought about is how will that built they want to build going to be more positive than negative in nature. Sacrificial design should not be considered. Sacrificial means the compromised negative impact generated in order to reach the built objective. Radically said, sacrificial built should not continue its growth.

How it will be built?

We need to rethink of the purpose of today’s built. Are monuments necessary? How many rooms do a family need? How large of a garden should we have in our yard? Do we really need a pool? Do we really need to build on the sea? If we do, how can we contribute to the surrounding in meeting these wants and needs? Observing nature is a way to start thinking about this. Due to norm that has lasted for centuries, we continued to build in a way that is oblivious to its impact on the environment. The degradation was slow and now it has finally manifest and we have realised something needs to change in the way we build.

A . C o n c e p t u a l i s a t i o n

“It is not just that many contemporary practices harm the world of our dependence but also that so few of them deliver the means to actually know the consequences of their activities beyond a horizon of immediate concern.” Fry, Tony (2008). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice (Oxford: Berg), p. 25

6

BanQ and Centre for Ideas are autopoiesis architecture as they communicated their design theory through design solution. As mentioned by Schumer, an architecture presence is physically and literally conspicuous thus hard to be disregarded. Tehrani’s view on how design should be unpretentious and directly respond to the problem is well displayed in his design for BanQ Restaurant. The contours of the ribs are inspired by the duct works on the ceiling and designed as to ‘orchestrate the chaos’.[5] The design outcome suits the spirit of the restaurant as the design if seen at light is immaculate and poetic. Yet, this is a pragmatic solution that hides the duct work while the ribs are easy to assemble and dismantle if any fixing of the services above it is required.

Both precedents utilised digital design application in creating design solution. Centre for Ideas especially emphasized its design being a result of generative process by communicating the movement from the virtual to actual through the form and material of the facade. Centre of Ideas is simply an expression of design possibilities using computational process. It suits well with the community of the site who are mostly involves in art and creative sphere and would be excited by the stimulation intended by the designer. The design for Centre for Ideas communicates the function of the building as a place for interdisciplinary research between the creative arts and the sciences, humanities and other fields of knowledge, truly a centre for ideas.[6]

Design computation has provided an easier platform to break through the traditional design method and open up possibilities of design solution. Traditional ceiling construction used to cover the services pipes often be the planar ceiling that takes up more space than it should as it will need to be placed at the lowest point of tangent. Breaking through the tradition, ribbing of BanQ interior acts as partition while different contours give a sense of function to the room. Hence, the ribs influences the movement within the space rather than just covering up the services. Computation and industrial technology has allowed the realisation of the unique curves and provide ease to the complexity of arrangements.

Design exploration for Centre of Ideas are mainly based on expansion of algorithm through computation. The distinct characteristic of the material and form of the facade expressed the design methodology and perhaps roused inquisition in the creative environment. BanQ and Centre for Ideas both have used the same method, however displayed different intention. Centre of Ideas deliberately expressed the designer’s theory of design computation through the built. On the other hand, BanQ utilised the approach to solve its design problem without consciously communicating it in the design outcome. However, the distinct characteristic both designs are capable in stimulating conceptual thoughts on design futuring in architecture.

A1 | Design Futuring

7

A2 | Design Computation

In order to accommodate these developments, a new and comprehensive domain of architectural theories is beginning to emerge in the intersection between science, technology, design and architectural culture. Oxman, Rivka and Robert Oxman, eds (2014). Theories of the Digital in Architecture (London; New York: Routledge), pp.1

Treehouse at Harptree Court [9]

“The new business model and new way of working that the technology is starting to define”[10]

San Genarro North Gate [7]

“The shape is completely site specific and can only find its true form when attached at these specific points and tensioned with the proper lengths.”[8]

8

There is a distinction between computerisation and computation. While computerisation enables designers to exhibit an enriched experience of space they are working with and makes it easier to communicate their idea to others, computation explores design possibilities to allow them to work with highly complex situation. According to Bradley Peter, computation has the potential to provide inspiration and go beyond the intellect of the designer.[11] Design exploration through computation exposed designers to more possibilities through the generation of unexpected results. More to that, application that incorporate computational simulations allow near precise projection on construction possibilities and workability with site and users.

An example of computation tool is Kangaroo plug-in in Rhinoceros and Grasshopper. It is a form-finding tool that come with computational physics. It allows us to extend our ingenuity and develop a more sophisticated feel for their constraint and possibilities. The prospect of computation in pushing boundary of the contemporary is conceivably infinite. However, there may be a concern on designers dependency on it, which may result to a new design culture that is individual, solitary, and focused mainly on the designers interacting with a computer screen.

Computation allows site specific exploration such as that demonstrated by SOFTlab’s installation at San Genarro North Gate. Two oculi was blended together with blurred distinction to form a tensile canopy. Inspired by classical domes, computation provide platform to explore different outlook on oculus. SOFTlab shifted the traditional mass construction of oculus to lightweight tensile canopy. The complexity of this installation lies within the surface made out of 4224 panels that each is unique in term of shape and colour. The complex fabrication process was made viable with the assistance of custom software tools. The tools created as the outcome of this installation can now be reused and elaborated to consider other design possibilities.

A more practical application of computational process would be the project of Facit House. One of their work is the Treehouse at Harptree Court, which is a cottage-like treehouse that is constructed using natural materials. This elemental design is aided by computational softwares. Dissimilar to SOFTlab’s intention in computational design, Facit House stance focus on sustainable production of 21st century homes. They explore the benefit of computer-aided design to manufacture houses in a way that contemporaries manufacture toys and aircrafts.[12]

“When architects have a sufficient understanding of algorithmic concepts, when we no longer need to discuss the digital as something different, then computation can become a true method of design for architecture.”[13] At the moment, computation is more of an analytical tool, while the creative thinking is still mostly resolved by designers. The question whether computation will soon progress from being analytical tool to an integrated system that allows creative input, manufacture, construction and every other possibility that lies.

9

A3 | Composition/Generation

Working with computational algorithms as primary generative material offers a different bent to, for example, the mathematical ratios of the Renaissance or the flow diagrams of Modernism. I am suggesting here that a new paradigm in composition is be ingarticulated through the opportunities offered by digital technology. Ednie-Brown, Pia, (2006). All-over, over-all: Biothing and Emergent Composition, Architectural Design, accessed online

20 March 2015 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.296/epdf

The Invisibles interactive installation, Orague Biennale, 2003 [16]

“the designer becomes part of a depth of complex relationality so that the totality of the compositional event becomes one evolving ‘thing’.”[17]

Space Block Hanoi [14]

“The architect’s role was to test the overall massing by iteratively adapting the stacked blocks and locations of window openings by trial and error, using a combination of physical models, digital 3D models and CFD analysis to assess how these fitted with real-life factors such as structure and facilities, before ‘pressing the stop button’.”[15]

10

Computational design that allows exploration broaden the method for generative design process. Composition on the other hand, is less affected by computation in its design process. Instead it is mostly useful for presentation and as a tool to communicate to clients and colleagues. However, Pie Ednie-Brown suggested a new paradigm in composition that will turn to account the emergence of generative computation.[18]

Computational process in computation comes when the designer takes the role of creating the complex relationship of compositional event. As the inputs are acquired, the compositional event will evolves and reach a point to where the designer and compositional event branched into two separate self-functioning identities. When this time comes, the designer is no longer the one held the role to compose as computational tool have acquired the data to produce composition.

The Invisibles interactive installation communicated Biothing’s manner of working that is exhibit adjustment of compositional behaviour. Design process of the Invisibles involved sketches of events of generative composition. Through consistency within Biothing’s working manner, the generation process adapted to designer’s behaviour . This consistency leads to the emergence of compositional behaviour into the generative system that bring out the role of the designer into design generation.

Dissimilar to the opinion to the paradigm shift raised by Ednie-Brown, Philip Steadman emphasized on method shift, that is the shift from composition to generation.[19] The idea of bottom-up approach to be more relevant than the traditional top-down approach to spatial arrangement. Computation allows designers to revolves algorithmic behaviour of users and the environment.

Space Block Hanoi model make use of the bottom-up approach that is commission by generative design. Space Block is an experiment to generate a better solution to typical shophouses in Hanoi.[20] The challenge to this design a hospitable living space in this high-populated area. Investigation and research was carried out to determine the population density, porosity balance between air circulation and privacy. The result of this investigation as well as the adoption of Basic Space Block method, the final form was generated without designer active involvement. The design process of Space Block incorporate designers into the picture and the start and the end of the process as computational generation usually comes in the middle of the process. Arriving to completion of the design, designer will test the result generated to real-life factors.

11

A4 | Conclusion

Design computation has allowed the possibility to utilise bottom-up approach that is applying site investigation into the algorithm in order to generate the solution that is best to overcome the design problem. The ability possess by computational tools to analysize data is in fact more efficient in dealing with algorithmic problem such has such as the behaviour of human and environment of the site.

This way, an effective and sustainable outcome is made simpler to produce as the generative aspect of computation maximise exploration of wholistic solution. The complexity of many aspects that needs to be incorporate to built environment such as the hospitability for human and site is made easier to resolve. As a designer, my role is to understand the brief, investigate the site context and produce input to generate the design. The aesthetic output as well as the workability of the design generated will be of my responsibility to resolve.

This way, the hard-to-resolve complexity of built environment and the rest of the nature can be explored and soon evolves to a solution for us to be a positive force on earth.

12

A5 | Learning Outcome

The idea of computer generated design came to me as something very individual and oblivious to the environmental context. Throughout the weeks, I have learnt that algorithmic behaviour of the environment can be applied to computational tools such as Rhino and Grasshopper to generate a solution to accommodate the aspects discussed.

Week 1.a

Week 1.b

13

A6 | Algorithmic Sketches

Week 1.a and Week 1.b explore the different form that can be generated through Rhino and Grasshopper. The different between the two is that, Week 1.a is the result of the simplest loft while Week 1.b is requires a lot more points and curves thus allows more variation.

For week 2, I played variation of planes. This reflects the ground tectonic and form a sequence of path following the levels of ground from lowest to top.

Week 1.b grasshopper

Week 2

14

1. Sokol, David (2009). http://www.australiandesignreview.com/interiors/661-banq

2. http://girlsjourneys.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/creative-and-incredible-restaurants.html

3. http://www.mvsarchitects.com.au/doku.php?id=home:projects:victorian_college_of_the_arts

4. http://vca.unimelb.edu.au/research/centre-for-ideas/about

5. Sokol, David (2009). http://www.australiandesignreview.com/interiors/661-banq

6. http://vca.unimelb.edu.au/research/centre-for-ideas/about

7. http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/san-genarro-north-gate/

8. http://softlabnyc.com/portfolio/san-genarro-north-gate/

9. http://blog.canopyandstars.co.uk/post/23101051622/clifton-life-the-treehouse-at-harptree-court

10. Bell, B. and Simpkin, S. (2013), Domesticating Parametric Design. Archit Design, 83: 91. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1560/epdf

11. Peters, B. (2013), Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought. Archit Design, 83: 8–15. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1545/epdf

12. Bell, B. and Simpkin, S. (2013), Domesticating Parametric Design. Archit Design, 83: 88-91. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1560/epdf

13. Peters, B. (2013), Computation Works: The Building of Algorithmic Thought. Archit Design, 83: 15.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1545/epdf

14. https://newarchinvn.wordpress.com/category/hanoi/

15. Kojima, K. (2014), Crafting Space: Generative Processes of Architectural Configurations. Archit Design, 84: 43. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1806/epdf

16. http://www.biothing.org/?cat=12

17. Ednie-Brown, P. (2006), All-over, over-all: biothing and emergent composition. Archit Design, 76: 79. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.296/epdf

18. Ednie-Brown, P. (2006), All-over, over-all: biothing and emergent composition. Archit Design, 76: 72–81. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.296/epdf

19. Steadman, P. (2014), Generative Design Methods and the Exploration of Worlds of Formal Possibility. Archit Design, 84: 24–31. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1804/epdf

20. Kojima, K. (2014), Crafting Space: Generative Processes of Architectural Configurations. Archit Design, 84: 43. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/doi/10.1002/ad.1806/epdf

15

B.1 | Research Field

Biomimicry

The problem that has come into our attention at this time of the century is our footprint on the earth. As we invent, manufacture and build, we have taken up resources and disrupted the environment which has led to adverse effect on the world’s liveability.

One way to seek opportunity of overcoming this situation is to learn from other things that is harmoniously living on this earth. We can learn from what we now often hear as ‘nature’s genius’.

Nature’s genius has designed things to sustain themselves gracefully on earth. Learning from nature would be a way to continue designing our built environment and to solve other human challenges. This method of learning from nature is also known as biomimicry.

There are various ways to approach biomimicry such as a literal replication of nature, interpretation of behaviour and investigation of properties. Us human are part of nature as much as other creatures on the face of the earth. Being perhaps the most intellectual and innovative creature there is on the planet, it is not wrong for us to learn from the rest of nature may it be living or non living environment, perhaps from some that has done better job at co-existing with the rest of the ecosystem.

16

Carlos Ginatta, ARCHITECTURE without architecture

Ginatta has written up an interesting and concise book on biomimicry design. His manifesto on biomimicry is that the built environment could improve its energy efficiency and adapt sensitivity of a natural organism.1 Essentially, built environment should act a little more like they are part of nature rather than operating in isolation.

The Eden Project, Grimshaw Architects

Inspired by molecules of soap bubbles, Eden Project form is irregular and adaptable to change in ground level as the site was still being quarried. The material performance of this project is worth a mention. The cladding panels of the Eden Project are made out of triple layered pillows of high performance ETFE foil. This pressurized is more efficient than double glazing windows. According to Pawlyn in his Ted Talk on “Using Nature’s Genius in Architecture”, he mentioned the weight of these pillows are 1% of the weight of double-glazing and can be seven times larger than the size of glass.2 Less steel structure would be required to hold this cladding up, thus allowing more sunlight while reducing amount of heat loss and heat gain through the frames. The project perhaps has met Ginatta’s manifesto on energy efficiency to certain degree.

Sahara Forest Project,

The team intended to use biomimicry throughout the design and development process. Some of the nature’s genius that they have been inspired by are Scarabaeidae beetles, sand skunk, and camels.3 This project is a complex research on the ecosystem level of the built environment as it addresses a whole range of challenges. At the moment they are lacking of architectural aesthetics as the approach is completely new to the field, perhaps the reason why the matter of aesthetics has not been weighted heavily into the project. However, the project is a good example of an extensive research project on biomimicry to integrate with built environment.

1 Carlos Ginatta, ARCHITECTURE without architecture (Berlin: Schaltungsdienst Lange o.H.G., Berlin),

8.

2 Michael Pawlyn, http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pawlyn_using_nature_s_genius_in_architecture/

transcript?language=en#t-302499

3 Michael Pawlyn, Biomimicry and the Sahara Forest Project, http://saharaforestproject.com/concept/

biomimicry.html

17

Image source: http://saharaforestproject.com/concept/biomimicry.html

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.

Charles Darwin

18

B.2 | Case Study 1.0

Skylar Tibbits - Voltadom

Image source: http://www.evolo.us/architecture/voltadom-installation-skylar-tibbits-sjet/

Process

Make a series of cone Trim cones to create voronoi

Find intersection with a planeTrim cones to create oculus

Develop surface

19

Null

Start No changes has been made to the given definition.

Boundary changed Changing the boundary curve of the points distribution.

Seed value changed Changing the seed value changes the arrangement of points.

Cull value changed Changing the cull value affect the selection pattern in surface creation.

Number of points changed Adding or decreasing points create more or fewer cones

Height value changed Changing the height of objects. As for sphere, it will affect the overall size as the dimension is in radius

Radius size changed Changes the size of individual geometry from their origin point.

V value changed Changing the V value in the domain will trim the bottom or/and top of the geometry

20

Start Exaggerate radiusOverpopulate 2D Change in seed value

Skylar Tibbits - Voltadom | Iterations

21

Points in trigrid cells

(default setting)

V limitTrigrid cell value

(10x, 1y)

U limit

22

B.3 | Case Study 2.0

Evolver by Alice Studio

23

Frames on curve Duplicate and rotate frames Rectangles on frames

Loft rectanglesDivide loft surface to locate control point

Develop pipe on curve

24

B.4 | Technique Development

25

26

B.5 | Technique Prototype

Not much exploration were successfully done at this stage. At this point of time, could not find my direction to proceed with the project. I test out the structural rigidity form by the warping of a strip of material. I identified that the warping strengthen the form.

27

B.6 | Technique Proposal

I want to continue exploring the extent of the definition. I know that I am very interested in spiralling form. However, I can’t decide on the purpose of design. I proceed with exploring the site more thoroughly and try to understand the relationship that can happen between human built and site environment. Perhaps I would delve into finding a problem within the site that I can rectify with my design.

Understanding the site, finding purpose for my design

28

Issues and aspects of the site that I have identified and perhaps can be responded by an intervention.

1. Feels unsafe 2. Have convenient trail for bicycle riders 3. Near a school. 4. Have a lot of construction nearby. 5. Tram stop, restaurants, cafés, convenient stores are nearby. 6. Despite active human circulation all around, the trail is exceptionally quiet.

29

B.7 | Learning Objectives and Outcomes

I find it hard to design in reverse. To consider the reverse engineering outcome and figuring out how to accommodate it to the site and give it purpose. However, I have learnt a lot about Grasshopper. I understand the flexibility of using Grasshopper. A set parameter can be test out in different species. This opens up the possibilities of a design ideas.

B.8 | Appendix - Algorithmic Sketches

30

C.1 | Design Concept

OQwurd

At the beginning of the semester, I proposed an intervention on Merri Creek to act as a point of interaction in order to make the site safer and more welcoming for the commuters. With this being kept in mind, the idea evolved as I progressively criticised its honesty - whether my creation cam only exist as a fiction.

After the catastrophic interim presentation, I decided to be true to myself and construct a fabrication that reflects my attitude on the project at the moment. Having seen the proposals made by fellow coursemates and I, it struck me that most of our proposals are interruptions - no matter how beautifully they are articulated. To help me see the situation in a different light or to prove my current perception, I decided to fabricate a structure that would act as a mode of observation on how human, animals, vegetation and climate respond to an architecture and vice versa. Hence, I introduce you OQwurd.

pronounced awkward

Mode of observation

Point of interaction

31

It’s relation with the site; Resting on the ground but not comfortably. Reaching to the trees but not too close. Touching the water but not quite. Awkward.

Human can go into it, somehow. Human can be on it, maybe. Animals can live in it, perhaps. Vegetation can grow in/on/around it, surely. Climate can disrupt it, yes?

Needs to be seen as an intervention - expressed as an exaggerated parametric form.

Assists human, animals, vegetation and climate response towards it.

Anticipated response HUMAN ANIMALS VEGETATION CLIMATE

: contemplative / resting ground : habitat : grow : weathering

image above : proposed relationship between built and site

32

Base curve

frames

duplicate frames

rotate the duplicated frames

make rectangles on frames

loft rectangles

create subsurface division on loft surface

move points along curves

create nurb curve from point

pipe curve

Technique

Extension and modification of the definition from reverse engineering exercise. Size of base curve is increased from 8mm to 100mm. It is important to note that the final form will be nearly half the size of the base. The model build 1:100 scale to speed up its generation on Grasshopper. Value of frame rotation and number of rounds are increased to create more flexible knot. Rectangles size are increased to 200x20mm. The rectangles are then lofted. Loft surface are then divided to locate control points to form NURB curve. Number of subsurface division will determine the number of control points. The more surface division, the more control point, the more twisting of the knot. To create smooth and restraint curve, the subsurface division is kept low at 5. The NURB curve generated from the control point can then be piped. Alteration we made to the value of frame rotation until desired form is achieved, that is to have a level surface at the middle part to rest the form onto the ground and to have curve arching to the top and bottom to spread itself towards the trees and water. It is then move and rotated to its final position.

the narration to the diagram

Getting the formthe diagram

33

deconstruct panels into their constituent parts that is the edge curves

thicken the curves using exoskeleton

Panel

Frame

create quadrangular panels on pipe surface

Making the surfacethe diagram

34

create quadrangular panels on pipe surface

shuffle panels by changing seed value and shuffling strength.

group the panels into two set of list using dispatch command to group the panels according to the intended pattern.

can go back to changing the seed value and shuffling strength until the intended panel arrangement is acquired.

Panel

The area people will step on were taken into consideration when arranging the panels. Possible high stress points are acknowledged by increasing the concentration of panels at those are to increase its structural strength.

deconstruct quad panels to get edge curves

list the curves into two groups to get more control on the curve arrangement on the list by changing the list index.

thicken the curve using exoskeleton command

Frame

The area people will step on were taken into consideration when arranging the panels. Possible high stress points are acknowledged by increasing the concentration of panels at those are to increase its structural strength.

35

C.2 | Tectonic Elements & Prototypes

Elements1. Frames

Act as primary construction element. The frames are made zigzag-ed so that panels can be placed in a seemingly random manner and be used minimally yet able to connect with different frames to strengthen the part that is necessary. The frames can be made out of recycle metal that can be retrieved from construction nearby.

Frame and panels setup viewed from outside Frame and panels setup viewed from inside

2. Panels

Act as cladding system to provide protection from sun and rain. Create more comfortable surface for people to sit on. Enhance structural rigidity where required. Different materials can be used to make the panels, such as plywood, metal, or Hessian fabric, depending on the function of the panel. They can be easily tied or riveted to the frame

36

A B

A and B overlaps at the intersection and tied as shown in image on the right.

Frame joints

generate frames on the curve

dispatch the frames into two target list

dispatch the frames again. Now from one of the list.

create circles on frame and mesh them

split frame using the mesh

37

38

C.3 | Final Detail Model

The structure allows animals, vegetation and human to interact with it. At first glance, it does not appear to portray a specific function, and that is the intention.

The scale of it allows people to go in or be on top of it, without going to the extend of scale most conducive for human use. This allows human to respond OQwurd as how they would like to respond to it, according to their imagination on what is the possible interaction.

Animals could inhabit OQwurd. I assume this possibility as I saw pigeons building nest under the bridge. Maybe OQwurd can be their next home. Some holes between frames are left unclad so they can go in and out and build their nest to where they feel is safe and away from human disruption. As can be seen in the image on the left, the OQwurd stretch towards the water and trees where human perhaps wont dare to explore and this can be a good place for the bird. OQwurd is not made as a bird house, but it can house the birds.

Co-evolve gracefully

39

Vegetation can grow around, into or on OQwurd. Vines can grow and find support on the frame and hessian rag. Grass may grow around or even inside it. What if a tree is planted in the middle and lift OQwurd up as it grow and it could one day be a treehouse if it is not broken apart by the tree instead.

There is a lot of things could happen to OQwurd but the prediction on the interaction is not absolute. That is why OQwurd is there. It is not design to accommodate a specific interaction, but it allows many and it depends on the how the site naturally respond to it. The resolution is OQwurd act as a mode of observation for us to see how human built will be responded by the site naturally, regardless of the design intention. Maybe the built and the site exist and evolve gracefully. Or maybe the nothing happened to it. Or maybe vandalism, growth of vegetation and exposure to weather will be too overwhelming for OQwurd.

Co-evolve interestingly / will soon be overwhelmed and collapse?

40

Top Front

render_07.jpg

41

42

C.4 | Learning Objectives & Outcome

Grasshopper

I have no knowledge on Grasshopper at the beginning of the semester. From what I heard from most people who have taken the subject they told me it has a lot to do with algorithm. At that point of time, my idea of algorithm is mathematics and equations which is a total misunderstanding. Yes, Grasshopper does respond to equations however not the user who are writing the equations down, although they can. The interface is simpler than I thought it would be. I find Grasshopper to be very useful in creating repeated elements and flexible complex geometries. It can make anything that can be made straight on Rhino and lay out the process as we go along. This is very convenient when some aspects require change, we can go back to the definition and find what we need. This can also stretch the possibility of our design as Grasshopper makes it easier for us to experiment with different species while retaining the parameters.

Not all is unicorns and rainbows with Grasshopper. Sometimes the command went too far from the intention and make random forms where there should not be any. Sometimes the joins between surfaces or curves are not all connected perfectly. This is when Rhino will come in handy in rectifying the glitch.

Algorithmic Design Thinking

While learning Grasshopper, I realised I am now more aware of my design process as the definition are laid out and I can track my design progress as I go along. Often when computation were not used in the initial design process, I depend on my memory and the notes I wrote in my journal. Sometimes I will miss the things that are important as I can reflect on every decision that I have made as it is quiet impossible for me to record every decision I have taken as sometimes I am not aware of the decision being a decision. With Grasshopper, this is all laid out and I can go back and reflect on what I did, take note on what I did not noticed about the things I have done and understand my design process. By understanding the design process and having them recorded, I can use them again and again and improvise and improve in the next project.

Prefabrication

Prefabrication has allowed actualization of computational geometry. For example, OQwurd could not have been actualized without prefabrication as each frames are unique in the direction it bends. This could have not been done manually or it will take a very long time and will be a very tedious process. Grasshopper allows creation of our imagination while prefabrication allows its actualization. This also open up the possibility of using different materials in construction.

43

44

45

46